Moonlit has launched Commentaries, a free legal commentary library for lawyers and AI tools.
The Amsterdam company says the service offers legal commentary drafted from legislation, case law and other primary legal sources using its AI system. Each text is reviewed by named legal experts before publication. Readers can trace propositions back to the underlying source material, including original rulings and legal provisions.
The launch begins with indirect tax, or VAT, where EU-level rules are applied across multiple national jurisdictions. The service connects legislation and judgments from across EU member states, allowing practitioners to compare how the same provisions are interpreted in different countries.
Moonlit is entering a market long dominated by specialist subscription publishers. Although statutes and court decisions are increasingly available through public databases, the commentary used to interpret them often remains behind paywalls.
The library is free to read for users with a free account. The commentaries are structured article by article around the core provisions practitioners use.
The product also reflects a wider debate in the legal sector over the reliability of generative AI. Legal professionals have raised concerns that large language models can produce fabricated citations or unsupported conclusions when they lack access to trusted interpretive material.
A LexisNexis survey cited by Moonlit found that 83% of legal professionals were concerned about inaccurate or fabricated information when using AI, while 81% said they were more comfortable using AI when it was grounded in trusted legal sources. Moonlit also pointed to court records compiled by researcher Damien Charlotin showing 2,149 court decisions involving AI hallucinations, including 854 cases directly tied to legal practitioners.
Moonlit says its answer is to combine AI-generated drafts with expert validation and source-level attribution. Each commentary carries a reference date showing the state of the law it describes. Its data layer is checked daily against new rulings so editors can update entries more frequently than traditional commentary services, which are often reviewed only once or twice a year.
According to Moonlit, one launch commentary links to 165 verified sources. Users can also suggest refinements or request coverage of additional areas of law through an on-page form, with editors reviewing submissions before any revised version is republished.
Roderick Lucas, founder and chief executive officer of Moonlit, said the move is intended to widen access to legal analysis.
"Public spending is under scrutiny everywhere and legal knowledge is a clear case of paying twice," said Roderick Lucas, founder and chief executive officer of Moonlit. "Much of this commentary is written by academics at publicly funded universities, who then have to pay to access it. The primary sources are public, and we believe the commentary built on them should be more accessible too."
Access model
Launching editors include experts from universities, courts, government, advisory firms and law firms. Paid academic editors and practitioner-authors review each draft at publication, and verified review badges identify passages that have been validated by an expert.
The business is also distributing the new material through partner platforms. Commentaries will be available through legal technology providers including Saga and Legal Mind, adding to Moonlit's existing presence in products used by legal professionals.
Moonlit is also making the commentary available through its data API and MCP connector so reviewed material can appear inside AI assistants such as Copilot, ChatGPT and Claude. This would place the content directly in systems increasingly used for legal research and drafting.
The launch adds to Moonlit's existing platform, which includes legal research tools, citation mapping and regulatory monitoring. The company works with law firms, advisory groups and public institutions on cross-border legal research.
Lucas said the central issue is whether users can verify legal analysis at source.
"Commentary belongs next to the law it interprets," he said. "If you cannot click through to the ruling a conclusion rests on, you are being asked to take it on faith. We built Commentaries so nobody has to."